Arizona Secession From The Union Could Be Reality Soon

[TheMastersNemesis]

The Arizona legislature is busily passing laws that will make it illegal to enforce federal laws in Arizona. Such laws even include a virtual abolishment of the Affordable Care Act not allowing any paying for any activities that involve enforcement of federal policies. Such laws would even have an effect on Medicaid.

Acts of nullification are pretty close to declaring secession from the US. Maybe we should lock the borders of Arizona as a foreign nation.

We live in strange times. And what is worse is that GOP leaders are telling states to ignore federal laws. Somehow such rhetoric seems criminal and even insurrectionist. The GOP says it loves the Constitution but in actuality wants to go back to the Articles of Confederation and scrap the Constitution.

[ND-Dem]

1. Jail the frigging traitors. seriously, wtf?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Are you also calling to "jail the frigging traitors"

in Colorado that aren't enforcing federal marijuana laws?

This is no different, as far as I can tell.

[ND-Dem]

65. Since the folks in arizona don't want to enforce ANY federal laws, not just marijuana laws, it's

quite different, and since you can't tell the difference, i have no idea whether you're reporting the facts on Colorado either.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. I'm sure you have the link

to back up your claim that Arizona doesn't want to enforce any federal laws, right?

BTW, states don't have to enforce federal laws, and in fact, have been forbidden in at least one case from doing so.

[ND-Dem]

70. did you even read the op?

[ND-Dem]

71. but i'm sure you have a link to support your claim that states don't have to enforce federal law,

no doubt that's why minimum wage in Arizona is fifty cents an hour.

is there a reason you've so protective of the Arizona right wing, btw? mr "sick of the 1%"?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. Pointing out incorrect information

isn't protective of anything but the truth.

As for a link, here you go:

On the first point, the nullifiers are correct: in a 1997 decision, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” That case involved the Brady Act of 1993, which established a national system for background checks and commanded state law enforcement officials to conduct them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/the-limits-of-nullification.html?_r=0

So, states can't impede the federal government from enforcement, but the states themselves don't have to enforce them.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the CSA takes precedence over Colorado's state law if the two are in conflict as the plaintiffs argue. Colorado says weed is legal, but the CSA says it isn't. Open-and-shut case, right?

Actually, no. "The regulatory regime that Colorado has put in place is not preempted by the Controlled Substances Act," legal professor Sam Kamin, who was part of the task force implementing Colorado's marijuana laws, said in an interview. "I expect those claims to fail." The issue? The Controlled Substances Act dictates federal drug policy -- but it in no way compels states to enforce that policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/11/after-losing-at-the-ballot-box-marijuana-opponents-make-a-hail-mary-pass-to-the-courts/

Federal agents can come into Colorado and enforce federal marijuana laws, but they can't force anyone in the state of Colorado to do it for them.

[ND-Dem]

78. "enforce" in this case meaning "do the background checks".... = limited meaning of "enforce".

"1. The Brady Act's interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional..."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=521&invol=898

Chief Justice Rehnquist...as an Associate Justice had authored the Court's short-lived opinion in National League of Cities v. Usery. There, the Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment to limit Congress's authority to regulate states in the same manner that Congress regulates individuals; National League of Cities itself held that when states performed "traditional governmental functions," they were immune from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements.

In the decade following National League of Cities, the Court considered several Tenth Amendment challenges to federal regulations, but rejected each of them. Finally, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court overruled National League of Cities.

Then-Justice Rehnquist wrote a one-paragraph dissent, confidently asserting that it was "not incumbent on those of us in dissent to spell out further the fine points of a principle that will, I am confident, in time again command the support of a majority of this Court."

Time has proved the Chief Justice to be at least half-right. The Court's recent federalism cases have not indicated an intention to return to the National League of Cities rule that states are immune in some circumstances from federal legislation.

But a clear (albeit slim) Court majority has embraced the principle that the Constitution assigns the Court an active and important role in policing the boundary between the federal and state governments.

As illustrated by the fiery exchanges between Justices Scalia and Stevens in Printz, "the battle scene of federalism," as Justice O'Connor described it in Garcia, is likely to remain an area of active conflict within the Court in the years to come.

https://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/printz-v-united-states

[SickOfTheOnePct]

81. As much as you want to believe it

States can't be forced to enforce federal law.

If you really believe that states must enforce federal law, then I assume that you believe Colorado law enforcement should be arresting marijuana users?

[ND-Dem]

84. define "enforce" and define which laws. Printz establishes no such broad right of non-enforcement.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), is a United States Supreme Court decision that holds that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments. The decision overruled a previous decision of the Court, National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), which had held that such regulation of the activities of state and local governments "in areas of traditional governmental functions" would violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authority

[CreekDog]

127. you're playing a very obvious game here, of false equivalency

you're saying a state not enforcing a law is the same as the state preventing a law from being carried out.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Yes I did

and all it is an unsubstantiated claim - no links to any actual legislation. I did find one law that was passed by the Arizona Senate that had to do with no enforcing any new federal gun legislation. Nothing about Medicaid, ACA or anything else.

Just more hysteria.

[JonLP24]

117. There is so much out there you can find

PHOENIX (AP) -- A bill that would make it more difficult for recently unemployed people in Arizona to collect unemployment benefits is likely to land on Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

The state House approved legislation Tuesday that would require unemployed workers to present documents showing they were fired before they can receive benefits. Under current law, the burden is on employers to fight fraudulent claims.

The 34-24 vote came a week after the Senate passed the proposal along party lines. Republicans control the Senate and House.

The proposed change follows complaints from business leaders about workers who walk off jobs and then file for benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-legislature-overhauls-unemployment-claims-221438455.html

For Want of a Word, Arizona’s Jobless Lose Checks

That last extension of unemployment benefits — typically received in weeks 80 through 99 of unemployment — is paid for entirely with federal money and does not affect state budgets. But because of ideological opposition and other legislative priorities, Arizona and a handful of other states, like Wisconsin and Alaska, have not made the one-word change necessary to keep the program going.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/business/18benefits.html?_r=0

Their legislature to overrule the government regarding medicare is so likely to be true I didn't even think to question it but I hope the OP provides a source for his or her claims.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

123. I can't say I'm too interested in laws that were passed in 2011 & 2013 n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Yes I did

and all it is an unsubstantiated claim - no links to any actual legislation. I did find one law that was passed by the Arizona Senate that had to do with no enforcing any new federal gun legislation. Nothing about Medicaid, ACA or anything else.

Just more hysteria.

[ND-Dem]

75. i found the gun bill plus one you missed. reported on the same day.

guns

http://www.kpho.com/story/28401252/senators-vote-arizona-should-not-enforce-new-federal-gun-laws

PHOENIX (Mar. 11, 2015) – Today, the Arizona House passed a bill that would create significant roadblocks for implementation of the Affordable Care Act, leaving the federal program without an enforcement mechanism in the state should it become law. The vote was 36-21.

Introduced State Reps. Justin Olson and Rep. Vince Leach, House Bill 2643 (HB2643) would prohibit the state in various ways from “from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with the Affordable Care Act.”

Most prominent in this list of prohibitions is a ban on “funding or aiding in the prosecution of any entity for a violation of the act.” This would prevent the Arizona Department of Insurance (DOI) from investigating or enforcing any violations of federally mandated health insurance requirements, something that will prove particularly problematic for the feds.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/arizona-house-passes-bill-to-block-obamacare-enforcement-36-21/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

76. Thank you for finding that

I didn't see it.

And as odious as the goal is, it's still permissible.

[ND-Dem]

80. is it? you know that because Printz exempted states from doing background checks?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

82. Why isn't Colorado forced to enforce federal marijuana laws? n/t

[ND-Dem]

85. why don't you give me a link about this issue instead of constantly repeating the claim? since

you were so critical of the other poster's unlinked claim....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. I gave you links

and you chose to dismiss them.

Now your turn - if states have to enforce federal laws, why doesn't Colorado have to enforce federal marijuana laws?

[ND-Dem]

113. I didn't see any. Please link me to where you gave me links and I 'dismissed' them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

114. You responded but you didn't see the links?

Too funny.

Post #74.

[ND-Dem]

131. No, I didn't see the link about marijuana tucked away at the bottom, sorry.

[JonLP24]

118. So the federal courts & docket is that open to them?

Where the hell is the DEA why aren't they here "enforcing" federal marijuana laws as much the local cops here are doing it? So they can charge them under Federal statues in Federal court as a state or local law enforcement agency? You know what this means? A lot of 10-year mandatory minimums for possession. That's federal law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

122. I don't care if the marijuana laws are enforced or not

You seem to be missing the point of the Colorado/marijuana example. The point is that if someone is going to post all sorts of hyperbole and hysteria about Arizona not enforcing federal laws, and saying that their federal funding should be cut off, that it's the equivalent of secession, then why aren't they saying the same about Colorado?

[JonLP24]

124. What is it I'm looking for...? False equivalence?

Federal funding cut off in what ways? State governments can create their own laws but law enforcement chooses to enforce really isn't their choice but certainly can apply an amount of discretion. Banks have been very scared by threats from the federal government to be careful in doing business with them which they were remarkably less afraid when it came to cartels drug money. Just odd.

Anyways, there was private security industry that sprang up protecting the transactions moving the drugs, moving the money, providing protection. I'm pretty sure they found a credit union or somebody to handle the financing aspects so the money is in a safe place & handled electronically.

But it isn't the same thing regarding what could be used regarding many examples. Oh, providing federal funding for unemployment benefits or affecting federal unemployment laws or extentions effectively by cutting off the money.

The gun & vehicle difference training & regulation begins with a good point that eventually falls of the rails if you take it further but I did see the point but I don't see the hypocrisy you seem to be implying.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

125. Your unrelated comments notwithstanding

It's not a false equivalence at all.

If one is going to say that it's illegal for Arizona to refuse to enforce federal laws, then it's naked hypocrisy to not say the same of Colorado when it comes to not enforcing federal laws.

[JonLP24]

135. It is funding not enforcing

I don't how to stop to say it but I have a right to say its wrong, especially since I live in Arizona.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

137. Of course you are free to say it's wrong in Arizona

But unless you also say it's wrong in Colorado, then you're being hypocritical.

[JonLP24]

138. We'll have to agree to disagree

I just don't see it. All Colorado did was change their state law, local police don't enforce federal laws. As far as not enforcing laws, the federal government doesn't even enforce a lot of their own laws. Torture is one of them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

139. And that's all Arizona is doing

changing their state law.

And I agree 100%, local police don't have to enforce federal law. However, whole premise of the OP is that Arizona is doing something wrong by refusing to enforce federal law. All I'm saying is that if it's wrong in Arizona, then it's wrong in Colorado too.

[JonLP24]

116. I'm very sick of the Arizona Republican legislature

who you are obviously referring into "enforcing federal laws". You can mention specific things point to certain things why you'd need a universal approach for immigration policy, like some town in some state somewhere may want "open border anarchy".

Arizona certainly has "federal laws" they want to enforce and things they'd prefer not to. "Being forbidden in at least one case from doing so." is omitting quite a bit if I'm thinking of the one case that you're thinking of.

[Katashi_itto]

88. Who cares, shut off all federal aid and military installations and suspend all military contracts

with corporations based in that state

[SickOfTheOnePct]

90. In Arizona or Colorado?

Or both.

Laughable (and illegal) either way, but just curious.

[Katashi_itto]

92. See #65

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. I already read that nonsensical response

Don't you have anything else?

[Katashi_itto]

103. #65 fits you

[SickOfTheOnePct]

104. I so love it

when, unable to form an intelligent, fact-based response, posters resort to the time-honored tradition of name calling.

[Katashi_itto]

109. See #65

[SickOfTheOnePct]

110. I think your record is scratched n/t

[Katashi_itto]

111. See #65

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. Congress controls all funding.

Not that your suggestion is the least bit logistically plausible.

[Katashi_itto]

93. Coming from you that's actually funny.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. Perhaps you can explain how funding would be cut from AZ once Congress allocates funds.

Or how thousands of personnel and their equipment would be moved from federal facilities in to elsewhere.

All based on the wild-eyed hyperbole of the OP.

[Katashi_itto]

97. I know precisely how its done, I am an accountant for a Govt. Agency.

That doesn't mean I cant enjoy the idea.

[elleng]

2. Is that a threat or a promise???!!!

[TheMastersNemesis]

4. We Could Stop Paying Everyone's Medicare & Social Security In Arizona.

Since most of these old fogies do not like the federal government and think that their money is being given to blacks and hispanics. Maybe they will understand what seceding means.

[onenote]

36. How do "we" do that?

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Does the DOD have any federal military bases in Arizona and Texas and all these other traitorous

states that are stuck on this secessionist meme?

If so, the Department of Defense should coordinate with congress to set up a committee that will decide to which state to move these military bases and facilities.

[android fan]

27. Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ

Home of the world's largest airplane boneyard.....

[brush]

31. The repugs in the Arizona legis. have gone nuts, Tucson has always voted blue . . .

so it should be interesting to watch how this all plays out.

[android fan]

32. Yep, I lived and worked in Tucson for a year

Would have stayed longer, but was laid off post 9/11.

Had to move back here....

Now I own my own business, and just try to take care of stuff

Had Kohl as my rep. Hated him. Left before the district split with Giffords/Grlvaja.

[brush]

35. Grijalva is always a good progressive voice

I think he was one of the ones that flirted with Pima County/Tucson and southern Arizona seceding from the extreme right crazies up in Phoenix and the state legislature to form Baja Arizona a few years ago.

I was all for that as I have family in Tucson. Too bad the effort didn't go anywhere.

[JonLP24]

120. Tucson and how much hatred I have over their sports teams

is where more of the reality & liberal pockets exist & the Raul Grivajala covers the southwest area all from there to Yuma and certainly is one of my favorite members in Congress. I recently came disillusioned with my own rep over her winter votes against Wall Street reform & in favor of "Citigroup protection" I don't think it was necessary because she already won but there it is.

[onenote]

38. coordinate with Congress? You realize who controls Congress, right?

There was a process, known as BRAC, that was employed to make base closure recommendations, but Congress has basically shut down that process

[GoCubsGo]

44. Several.

Five in Arizona. Twenty in Texas, and 10 Coast Guard stations. Also NASA is in Texas.

[TheDebbieDee]

146. You would think that having all those astronauts in Texas

would make most Texans impervious to the republiCANT bs spell!

[irisblue]

5. 1861 worked so well for so many

asses

[MineralMan]

6. No, actually it couldn't.

There won't be any secession and any such legislation will be found to be unconstitutional immediately. Arizona is no more capable of operating independently of the federal government than any other state. This legislation is doomed from the start.

[TheMastersNemesis]

9. Maybe So But We Have Enough Fools Who Would Arrest Federal Agents.

Then what. And such rhetoric encourages nuts like Clive Bundy. What if someone had fired on our federal agents first and they had to respond.

[MineralMan]

10. We? Who are we?

Arizona won't be arresting federal anybody. Their legislators may be idiots, but that's a long way from arresting federal agents or any other officials.

They're dreaming.

[JonLP24]

121. It is a trip their willing to make

I'd do a search for "Andrew Thomas" though he was the Attorney General not a state legislature but if you know about Arpaio feuds with judges & "other officials" you know who he is.Feuds with judges and County Supervisors

Between 2008 and 2010, Arpaio and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas together undertook a number of government-corruption investigations targeting political opponents, including judges, county supervisors and administrators, resulting in filing of criminal charges against several individuals, lawsuits against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and a federal civil-racketeering suit against the supervisors, four judges, and attorneys who worked with the county.[93]

In early 2010, Arpaio and Thomas sought to have a grand jury indict a number of Maricopa County Judges, Maricopa County Supervisors, and employees of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The grand jury, in an unusual rebuke, ordered the investigation ended. This action has been described as meaning that "...the case is so bad, there's no further evidence that could be brought [to substantiate it]". Legal experts agree this is a rare move.[94]

Arpaio and Thomas lost every case, either by ruling of the courts, or by dropping the case.[95]

Arpaio's and Thomas' actions in these matters led to Thomas' disbarment by a disciplinary panel of the Arizona Supreme Court, which found that Thomas "outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law" while serving as Maricopa County Attorney. The panel found "clear and convincing evidence" that Thomas brought unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the state attorney general.[96] "Were this a criminal case," the panel concluded, "we are confident that the evidence would establish this conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt."[97][98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Feuds_with_judges_and_County_Supervisors

On December 1, 2009, Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that they "filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, leading Superior Court judges [including Judge Gary Donahoe], and a private law firm shared by the Board and Court, alleging the defendants have conspired illegally to block criminal investigations and prosecutions of themselves, particularly those related to the new US$341 million Superior Court Tower and Supervisor Donald Stapley Jr."[58][59]

On December 9, 2009, Thomas held a press conference to announce that he had filed criminal charges against Judge Donahoe on three felony counts: bribery, obstructing a criminal investigation, and hindering prosecution. Thomas presented no evidence of actual wrongdoing on Donahoe's part, other than several rulings with which he disagreed. Thomas filed the charges without first seeking a grand jury indictment.[60][61][62][63]

<snip>

Rather than ending the inquiry, as ordered by the Grand Jury, Thomas held a press conference to announce that he had worked with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Arpaio's attorney, to refer the matter to the United States Department of Justice Public Integrity Section.[68] The DOJ responded that they did not intend to review the file. Further, the acting chief of the section responded "In these circumstances, I was dismayed to learn that your mere referral of information to the Public Integrity Section was cited and relied upon in a pleading in federal court [the now-ended Arpaio/Thomas civil RICO lawsuit] and then used as a platform for a press conference."[69][70][71]

Phoenix New Times reporter Ray Stern noted that, despite multiple press conferences and a complete set of Grand Jury Transcripts, there is no record of Thomas having presented any evidence of bribery by Judge Donahoe.[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Thomas_%28politician%29#Conflict_with_Maricopa_County_Board_of_Supervisors_and_Superior_Court_judges

Andrew Thomas still ran for Attorney General after this -- I remember the primary debate with Tom Horne. Basically both of them accusing the other of corruption for an hour which ended that either of them they would support the other in a general election. If you feel the other person is corrupt why would you support them? It makes sense when both people are correct in calling the other corrupt

It saddens me deeply a great candidate such as Felecia Rotellini lost narrow elections, the first one against Tom Horne who got there at the expense of Andrew Thomas exposed corruption later lost a primary because of his own exposed corruption she still lost 50-50 to Brnovich or whoever. The thing that appealed to me is she took stands in the 2010 one and the SB 1070 question was asked which her primary opponents distanced themselves from giving an answer though not really related to what an Attorney General does.

On edit - my point is I'm not as willing to go as far as you are in claiming that nobody federal or otherwise will be getting arrested. Too early to tell but Arpaio will certainly try or at-least spend time thinking of a way to do it.

On edit -- I strongly encourage you or anybody to look up her law enforcement background. She was tasked with going after banks & credit unions, lenders, the whole 9 yards and good at it. Her RW opponents said because of this she wouldn't be tough in handling the violent criminals she will be a pushover basically in their campaign ads. It would make for a good comedy if it wasn't so pathetic & sad.

[former9thward]

19. You notice the OP does not link to any such laws.

Why? Because there are none. The only laws that have been passed relate to local or state enforcement of federal laws. Those laws merely restate in statutory form Printz v. U.S. (1997) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that local officials could not be required to enforce federal laws and regulations. That applies to all 50 states -- not just AZ. A faux outrage OP.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Exactly

The only thing I could find that's recent is a law passed on March 11 that says Arizona won't participate in the enforcement of an new federal gun laws.

[TheMastersNemesis]

7. Secessionist & Nullification Rhetoric Is Dangerous And A Threat To Our Our National Security.

This insanity must stop. Our enemies take great pleasure and solace in such division. And such an atmosphere is more likely to make them test us as a nation. And such pronouncements are almost like declaring civil war. It is very unhealthy and must be treated as insurrection.

[former9thward]

20. What do you propose?

Arrest legislatures? Shoot them with or without a trial?

[android fan]

28. If it was me, I'd throw them into a mental institution immediately

and tell the cops that he's armed and dangerous and should remain institutionalized until the heat death of the sun.

[former9thward]

58. Always nice to hear reasonable thought out answers.

[fredamae]

8. Hmmmm, do they get water

fuel and any other services/supplies from Any other states? The feds? They may want to think carefully....life has a tendency to not allow one to have "it" both ways.

[XemaSab]

107. They'd have to renegotiate for Colorado River water

Let's see them try to get by without that.

[MineralMan]

11. Federal Funds going to Arizona

Federal dollars for Arizona
The Census breaks federal spending into five main categories. The amounts to Arizona, in 2001 and 2010, and the percent increase for each were:

Retirement: $11.1 billion; $18.5 billion; +67.3 percent

Direct payments: $5.7 billion; $13.7 billion; +139.9 percent

Grants $5.4 billion; $14.4 billion; +164.1 percent

Procurement: $5.3 billion; $12.8 billion; +143.5 percent

Wages and salaries: $2.9 billion; $5.0 billion; +70.7 percent

Total: $30.4 billion; $64.4 billion; +112.3 percent

The second number is the 2010 number in each category. Can Arizona generate that kind of money? Nope.

http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2011/09/federal-funds-flowing-to-arizona-have-doubled-in-the-past-10-years/

[android fan]

29. Yep. See how the idiot paradise of theirs help with zero federal dollars pouring

and depending on local taxes?

They'll plead to go back to the way it was before it got nuts.

[panader0]

56. Which "idiot paradise" do you live in?

[leftofcool]

12. Good, let them go and take a few other states with them.

We take back all the federal highways, the federal lands, any federal infrastructure including cable, wireless etc... they set up their own social security system, no FEMA, no elected officials, no help period. Let them be their own country.

[Politicalboi]

13. That would be fantastic for tourism

I would think we would need passports to cross into Arizona or whatever new name they give it. Go ahead Arizona, hopefully Texas will follow you, and then Mexico can seize it back.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

23. We used to be a Republic and that worked for ten years.

1836-1845. Until Sam Houston wanted us to join the union. Texas has the mindset of a country.

I'm not saying we should secede, but we have a lot of fools who want to. We haven't learned anything in 155 years.

[freshwest]

89. Mexico will take it back - exactly! Destroy your government, another one will take its place! n/t

[PADemD]

14. No Congressional Representation

That would mean that John McCain and Jeff Flake would have to resign from Congress.

[Jane Austin]

15. Woot!

Making it that much easier to take back the Senate.

[android fan]

30. And all federal pork cut off

and all refunds due to the taxpayers rejected and removed from the system.

Declare them persona non grata and stateless.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Under what statutory authority would this laughable vendetta over a non-existent issue be executed?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. That would be the

"fuck you, you're not part of America if we don't like your laws" clause of the Constitution.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. For all the ginned-up outrage over AZ not enforcing laws a lot of people in this thread

seem determined to fabricate unconstitutional decrees with no due process as retaliation for something that isn't anything other than the OP's wild imagination.

There are days when I wonder, Is the sane world watching these spectacles?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

53. +1000 n/t

[shenmue]

16. Yay!

[cali]

17. Bzzzt. Not a frickin' chance. absurd. ridiculous.

[panader0]

54. Seriously... I hope the OP can get a grip.

Signed, an Az resident

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. Nah. Just wait for the crazy old white people to die off.

[elias49]

22. Hopefully they crazies will be voted out

I don't think Arizona can afford to wait until they die off!

[libdem4life]

21. Also, no more Snowbirds ... retirees from the cold north spending the winter in the sun. n/t

[appalachiablue]

140. A friends's brother retired from Ford 7 yrs. ago, lived in Detroit 40 yrs, native NYer. Splits time

between Detroit and AZ retirement property. Very intelligent, good humor, young for his age but conservative, as in almost Tea Party but too worldly. Got into the Arrpaio/Brewer and border mess stuff c. 2008. Real shame, cuz on many issues he's open minded, close to liberal on some matters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Now we know where to put the radioactive waste. n/t

[RKP5637]

77. +++ 1,000 +++ n/t

[JonLP24]

136. They already do

well on Native land mostly.

[Zorra]

25. Yay! Now I'll be able to get those rocket launchers my dad would never get me for XMAS

presents when I was a kid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=645807

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. The Second Civil War has been going on for awhile

but definitely became serious once Obama was elected.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. There is a huge difference

between obeying federal law and enforcing federal law; I'd like to read the text of the proposed legislation to see what it actually says.

[onenote]

37. No it won't, but your hyperbole is entertaining.

As is the hyperbole of those that have suggested various responses that are unrealistic as well.

[Takket]

39. perhaps a state should be allowed to try this

we would put checkpoints at every road in and out of the state and import/export tariffs out the wazoo. a week after secession when a bottle of orange juice is $10 and a gallon of gas is $6.00, they will realize how absurd an idea this was just because they hate a black president who wanted affordable healthcare.

[pinboy3niner]

41. It would be worth it just to be able to tell Arizonans "Papers, please." :) nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. It's not secession and tariffs between states is unconstitutional.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Any state that has legalized MJ in any capacity is not enforcing federal law. It's not secession.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Yep

And when the federal government has told states that they're not permitted to enforce federal immigration law, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the feds to now come back and say there's a problem with states refusing to enforce federal laws.

[lonestarnot]

46. Blah blah blah, federal law supersedes state law. They can act like the simpletons they are, but

they won't get too out of hand as they are cowards, for now, cowards on sticks if they aren't careful.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. And states don't have to enforce federal laws n/t

[Rex]

61. They also cannot dismiss themselves from the Union.

This is just FUD imo. Arizona can bark all it wants to.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. Arizona isn't dismissing themselves from the union

They're just saying they aren't going to enforce federal laws.

Which is perfectly legal.

[Rex]

63. Exactly, that is why the OP saying they are seceding is ludicrous.

I live in Texas and hear the same FUD crap all the time. NO state is going to dismiss itself from the Union, someone saying they are is either grossly misinformed or just pushing FUD imo.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. Agree

Some of the stuff I see here makes me wonder how we as Democrats can make fun of Republicans for being misinformed and hysterical.

[lonestarnot]

133. Selective enforcement is against the law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

134. This isn't selective enforcement

And even if it were, selective enforcement is not illegal in all cases.

[lonestarnot]

141. Your post eluded to selective enforcement or non-enforcement of federal laws by states...

I will not kick it again.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

142. Sorry, but you're wrong

I've never mentioned nor alluded to selective enforcement. And even if I had, your statement that selective enforcement is illegal is flat out wrong.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. Arizona isn't alone.

Here's one that the Alaska legislature has put forth.

http://www.adn.com/article/20150219/bill-alaska-legislature-seeks-transfer-federal-lands-state-control

JUNEAU -- House Speaker Mike Chenault has introduced legislation calling for the federal government to transfer to the state title to lands it controls in Alaska by Jan. 1, 2017.

The proposal would not apply to lands that as of the start of this year were part of national parks, monuments or historic sites. It wouldn't apply to land used for military purposes, land within a municipality or land held in trust by the state, local government or another entity.

Proceeds from the sale of any such lands by the state would be split with the federal government. The feds also could get a cut of mineral lease rentals and royalties, subject to appropriation.

<snip>

[HereSince1628]

57. Destabilization would be a concern if this escalated towards reality

That's an ultimate dream of libertarians who want weak states and no federal government

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. Gee, seccession worked so good th first time around.

We will see what happens when nullified laws are taken to the Supreme Court.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. No laws are being nullified

States don't have to enforce federal laws.

[guillaumeb]

55. as the following link will show, Arizona receives

$1.19 in revenue from the Federal Government for every dollar it contributes. That makes Arizona a welfare state. A taker. If Arizona was to secede their budget would lose hugely. Plus they are water dependent on other states.


http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. Passing this law is not secession

States don't have to enforce federal laws; in fact, the federal government has told states they can't enforce immigration laws, so the whole "this equates to secession" is ridiculous.

As has become common on DU, much ado about nothing.

[guillaumeb]

66. true. my comment is meant to show

that the very idea that people would consider secession shows how badly informed many people are. States like Texas receive so much more than they contribute that they could not exist as independent entities.

[Hekate]

68. Promises, promises. Also: twaddle.

[H2O Man]

69. No. It won't.

[Colorado Vince]

79. can i help pack?

I'm right next door, after all!

[DeSwiss]

83. What a False Karass!

- Granfallooners every last one of them!!!!!

[AnnieBW]

87. Does that mean that we get rid of McCain?

I mean, if Arizona secedes, he will no longer be a United States Senator. Him and Kyl both!

[trumad]

95. There is a Parrot in this thread who keeps repeating States don't have to enforce federal law...

Well no fucking duh!

BUT---Federal law can be enforced by the Fed if the feel inclined to do so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. "Federal law can be enforced by the Fed if the feel inclined to do so."

No one has argued to the contrary, that I can see.

[CTyankee]

98. send in the 101st airborne just like Ike did in Little Rock.

Obama needs to get tough with these creeps. I'm fed up with hearing about their petty differences on the ACA. If we have to, throw the governor's butt in jail...

Sick of this shit...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. Nothing illegal is happening. The OP is just peddling hyperbole.

Even if a state were doing something wrong -- which happens practically every day -- the courts, not the military, are the proper venue.

Eisenhower only employed federal troops to enforce desegregation because the governor employed state troops to interfere with implementation of a duly adjudicated case. Eisenhower didn't lead with troops as so many seem intent to suggest.

[CTyankee]

100. right, but if AZ tries to secede...what then? there was a war last time some folks did that.

But the courts should force the state to follow the law of the land. States can't just decide which laws to obey and which not to obey.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

106. The OP is the only one mentioning secession

Passing a law doesn't equal secession.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. AZ could also be carved from the earth and taken away by aliens...what then?

I mean, as long as we're talking about things that -- without supporting evidence -- could happen.

So far we haven't been presented with any legislation that would nullify federal law (unlike MJ legalization). Nor has such a law even been passed let alone challenged in court.

Right now the whole thing looks overwrought.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

105. Well no fucking duh!

Who said it couldn't be?

[catbyte]

101. If it passes & Brewer signs it the federal government should immediately stop all federal money to

AZ & see how well they do. I am so tired of these assholes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. Are you in favor of stopping federal money

to all states that refuse to enforce federal laws?

[catbyte]

130. yes

[thelordofhell]

129. Brewer is no longer the governor

[JonLP24]

115. I seriously doubt it

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

and I'd be very harmed if this became a reality considering where I live but they stop enforcing federal laws what are they going to do with Ft. Huachuca & Luke Air Force Base? However, they have been effective in ways you describe.

I don't know if remember the compromise with extended unemployment efforts & tax cuts? Basically the Arizona legislature made the un-extended UE part of it meaningless with their actions like the effects of their laws would have on Medicaid.

They have already nullified stuff & the US government which I sing their praises when it comes to Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, & especially Joe Arpaio. He needs the law dogs to be sent for him

[L0oniX]

119. I'm sure that will help their water problems.

[Nac Mac Feegle]

126. You just can't spell crazy

Without R-AZ.

[lapfog_1]

128. cut 'em loose - but no more medicare and no more SS and no more federal dollars - n/t

[Warpy]

132. The south has always wanted the Articles of Confederation

It's one of those "they didn't try it long enough" things of theirs. Well, they didn't try it for very long because a weak central government didn't work, colonies were on the verge of war against each other, and a country fighting against itself would have been easy pickings for both the British and every other seafaring empire at the time.

[cordelia]

144. We do? News to me.

[Warpy]

145. Why do you think it was called the Confederacy?

That's the form they pretty much adopted when they tried to secede.

Didn't work then, either.

[onenote]

143. Has it been 24 business hours yet?

Isn't that the DU standard for "soon"?

[Throd]

147. No state will secede. Calm down.